The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

Greg, something else you might want to check out: If you go over to Chapman’s site, and his biography, you will notice that he claims to be a “Jury Commissioner, Prince William Circuit Court,” which is, of course, the court that handles civil matters. Now, this may be another case of padding (I can’t imagine WHO would appoint him to that, given all his legal problems), but if it’s not it is most certainly a conflict of interest.

You should contact the American Center for Law & Justice at http://www.aclj.org/ and the Center for Individual Rights at http://www.cir-usa.org/ and tell them about your case. They’re conservative legal groups that defend constitutional rights and free speech. I’m sure one of them would take this case on.

Once that happens, you’ll be on Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity faster than one of Bruce Lee’s kung fu moves…

Given that you don’t fish in that particular pond, Jim, your assurances are probably not well-informed, Jim. I have a sneaking suspicion that ACLJ won’t touch this case with a ten-foot pole, particularly when they see the posts in question. What’s the principle they’d be defending? The right of an anonymous pseudo-con to viciously and pseudonymously attack a Conservative.

Gill & Gallgher is a worthy target of scorn and ridicule for what they’ve done, and others far more knowledgeable in the law have proven this in great detail. They do a great disservice to those who practice law and tarnish the public’s opinion of the legal profession with their antics. I would imagine that you as a professional would be upset that your fellow professionals are harming your profession.

But I haven’t tried to “slime you or the foundation” and honestly don’t understand the reference. We may disagree sometimes, but I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a great attorney who defends the interests of some pretty important clients in cases that impact society at large in vital ways. I’d imagine you’re pretty darned good at it, given how you present arguments.

Greg, I never said or suggested that you tried to “slime [me] or the foundation”; I was comparing those who have with those who are sliming “Gill & Gallagher,” and noting the results of my experiences with the tactic. If you applied similar scrutiny to the “evidence” that you have against Chapman, you might want to start saving your pennies.

As for your reliance upon “others far more knowledgeable in the law,” and assuming that you’re not relying upon that noted legal scholar AWCheney, I would note that none (to my knowledge) is being paid by you, or has put his or her name on it. That’s a pretty thin reed upon which to rely.

Honestly, “sliming” Gill & Gallinger seems pretty reasonable to me based on a casual observation of their filings and communications. I think they’re making a reasoned conclusion, well supported by the evidence.

I think this is much more serious than people are conveying. Greg, you are a nice guy, and I hope you come out of this OK, but this isn’t the way I’d chose to defend myself.

You seem to support and encourage labelling your opponent’s lawyers as terrorist supporters and incompetents.

I can’t imagine a lawyer you would hire would take that tact. If you succeed in harming their business, it will be used as evidence that you smear people purposely for gain.

I still don’t understand why, when you and BVBL got the warning letter telling you that your accusations were false, you didn’t simply apologize and move on. You could have stopped this thing in it’s tracks.

You probably still could. Why defend false accusations?

You speak elsewhere of our free speech rights, but surely your lawyer has explained to you that each of these statutes you are sued under are valid points of law applied against people exercizing their “free speech rights”.

Short summary, there was a dispute on the Friends of Chinn Park library board, and in the heat of the moment a woman said “Heil Hitler” to the chairperson.

The Chair SUED the lady, and WON. Said the judge: “If someone came up to me and said, ‘Heil Hitler,’ I’d find them in contempt.”

Read my column, you may enjoy it, but realise that in Virginia, if simply saying “Heil Hitler” can get you a fine, imagine what substantive false claims will get you. We don’t have to like it to know that it is serious.

I don’t want you to have to go to court, I don’t want you to lose. But this isn’t some blogger game where people just rachet up attacks on each other, this is the real world, where there are real consequences.

You might be able to plead “temporary bloganity” (A word I just made up to describe how people get so used to attacking people for fun in cyberspace that they forget there are real people in the real world being really harmed by their “fun”.

Your response of “bite me” would be an example — it’s a natural response in the blogosphere.

Hopefully, you have a real lawyer you are paying to help you — but MY advice would be to call Steve, set up a lunch date, go meet him, talk through all this, show him your evidence, let him show you his, and settle this.

I don’t care about BVBL, because he or she is not a “real person”, just some anonymous thing. But I care about what happens to you, I don’t want to see you spend money on lawyers, much less have to pay a fine and have your reputation in the real world be effected.